Sitting of 17 June 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BROTHERTON, from Salford, against the County Coroners' Bill.—By Mr. LITTLETON, from Dundalk, for Quays, Docks, and other Buildings, to that Port; from Harborne, for equalizing County Rates.—By Mr. CHARLES GRANT, from the East-India Company, for allowing the Importation of Sugar from the East at the same Rate of Duties as from the West Indies.—By Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY, from Brewood, for a Clause in the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.—By Lord JERMYN, from several Places, against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By Mr. EWART, from the Debtors in Lancaster Gaol, for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt.—By Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, from several Individuals, in favour of the Tithe Commutation Bill.—By Mr. KEMEYS TYNTE, from Yeovil, for Vote by Ballot; from the Creditors of the Tolls of the Wiveliscombe Turnpike, against the Lime Toll Exemption Bill.—By Mr. WALKER, from Walmersley, against the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. DUNLOP, from Kilmarnock, in favour of the Bankrupt-Laws (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. FERGUSON, from Kirkaldy, for relieving Royal Burghs from maintaining Prisoners sent from beyond their respective Boundaries; from the Linen Weavers of the same, for fixing a Standard of Wages.—By Mr. E. G. S. STANLEY, Mr. THICKNESSE, and Mr. WALKER, from several Places, for improving the Practice in Lancaster Court of Common Pleas.—By Captain YORKE, from Landed Proprietors of Cambridge County, for Relief to the Agricultural Interest; from Swaffham Prior, for amending the Sale of Beer Act; from March, Isle of Ely, against Drunkenness.—By Mr. J. SMITH, from Newport Pagnell, against the proposed Measure of Church Rates.—By Lord ROBERT MANNERS, Lord GRIMSTON, Lord BRUDENELL, Lord ASHLEY, Lord E. BRUCE, Lord HENNIKER, Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, Sir JOHN TYRELL, Sir JOHN WALSH, Captain YORKE, Messrs. BANKES, R. TREVOR, HERBERT, J. MARTIN, W. PATTEN, and HOPE, from a Number of Places,—against the Universities Admission Bill, against the Claims of the Dissenters, against the Separation of Church and State, and for Protection to the Established Church.

ADMISSION OF DISSENTERS TO THE UNIVERSITIES.
Mr. GeorgeWood moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. Goulburnreally felt himself compelled to take advantage of the opportunity which the present Motion on the Orders of the Day presented to him, in order to submit to the hon. Member whether he really could think it consistent with fair discussion to introduce the subject of the Universities' Admission Bill under the present circumstances of the House. For his part, when he considered the extraordinary nature of the subject, and the character of the Motion itself, he really could not bring himself to consider that the hon. Member had moved the Order of the Day with any other object in view than that of postponing his Motion to a future opportunity. He repeated, that he could not induce himself to believe that the hon. Member wished otherwise than that the question should be fairly and fully discussed, or that he would be a party to

493
any arrangement which must preclude the possibility of a fair discussion of such a very important subject. If any intention had existed of pursuing the subject to a final discussion on this day, there ought not to have been any permission given to Committees to proceed on their business. He had himself to attend to a Committee on the tea-duties, in which there was under consideration an important point of discussion. Another Committee was at that moment sitting upon the salaries of Judges in Scotland, and the subject involved an important consideration, and it was desirable that hon. Members who were particularly interested in the administration of justice in that country should not be absent from the Committee. There were Committees sitting on the East-India trade, the Islington Market, upon Railroad Bills, and upon other subjects on which the Members of that House were particularly engaged. He (Mr. Goulburn) could not but think the present the best opportunity of stating his objection to the discussion of an important subject, when it was barely possible that any discussion could be entered upon with satisfaction. The hon. Members knew that, by the arrangements adopted with reference to morning sittings, they must terminate at a particular hour, and that a Gentleman must bring his arguments and his speeches within a limited time, whilst those who might think it necessary to answer one, and refute the other, must be interrupted in the body of his argument, and have his speech postponed for a considerable period. If the morning sittings were to be dedicated to the discharge of the ordinary business of the House, care ought to be taken that the business was of that character that it was a fair presumption that the question might be disposed of within the time allotted for debate. A most unfair impression might be made on the public mind, even with respect to facts, if discussions were allowed to proceed, when only a small part of the House could by any possibility be present. What experience had not the House had of the inconvenience of not following this rule. He would appeal to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, himself upon the subject. The noble Lord had chosen the early sittings for the Committee on his Poor-laws' Amendment Bill, thinking that the insulated and unconnected points of the Bill could be brought to a termination within the limited sittings of two hours; and what had been the result? The noble
494
Lord had not persevered on finding that even insulated questions could not be brought to a conclusion in one morning sitting. He had made no progress, and, notwithstanding this, the House was now called on to take into consideration on that morning one of the most important questions that could be brought forward. Let the House see how such a proceeding would work, By the regulations of that House, on three evenings every week the Government business had precedence of all other. On those three evenings, Gentlemen who conducted any public Bill could have no chance of getting through with their business. If the University Admission Bill were to be proceeded with upon that day, there would be an adjourned debate. On Thursday the question would take precedence of all others, and if it were not then concluded, it would likewise have precedence over all other subjects on Tuesday, so that on every Tuesday and every Thursday no other Gentleman could bring forward any question in the morning, whilst the priority of Government business would prevent them bringing forward anything in the evening. The House could not but recollect, that the discussion upon the University Petition had lasted a whole week, and that it would not then have terminated, but for the intervention of the holidays, which had in fact prevented the renewal of the subject. If the debate had then been upon a general principle, like the principle of the present Bill, did the hon. Gentleman imagine, that even the holydays would have terminated the discussion? On the lowest possible calculation, five days having been devoted to the Petition, it must be calculated that if they began the proposed discussion in the morning sitting of that day, the House would be occupied for many weeks in the discussion, to the prejudice of all other questions however important, if they were not, strictly speaking, Government measures. He (Mr. Goulburn) trusted, that this was a proposition to which the House would not give its assent. Let the House fix some day for the discussion of this question, upon which there could be a hope of bringing it at once to a termination.
Mr. George Woodwas not aware on what ground it could be assumed that it was not his intention to persist in the Bill this morning. Had the right hon. Gentleman put the question in private, he should certainly have told him that it was his intention, and the time of the House

495
might have been spared. It was not his fault that the question had not come earlier under the notice of the House. He gave notice early in the Session; the Bill was read a first time before the Easter holidays; and he had endeavoured unsuccessfully to bring the subject on on several previous occasions. If the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was to prevail, the House could never grapple with any question that might be supposed to occasion a debate that must necessarily be adjourned.
Sir Robert Ingliswas not anxious to connect the Government with this measure, but he could not help thinking they were called upon by its great importance to devote one entire evening to its discussion. The present measure involved a question of principle, which ought to be discussed with as little interruption as possible.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, there was no limitation to the period devoted to the debate in the evening, and it was resumed on the next day, when the recollection of the House was fresh with regard to what had taken place on the preceding night. This, however, could not be the case with an adjourned debate from one morning to another. As an illustration of the inconvenience of devoting the morning sitting to business that must necessarily be adjourned, the House would recollect that the speech of an eminent and learned professor was sliced in two a few mornings ago, by the Speaker leaving the chair, and the remainder pronounced on a subsequent day. There were twelve Committees now sitting, six of which he (Sir Robert Peel) had that day to attend. He trusted the noble Lord would consider they were called on to determine on a question of the greatest importance. The morning sitting was understood to be devoted entirely to the reception of petitions, many hon. Members were intrusted with 50 or 100, and sought every opportunity to present them; if, therefore, the whole three hours were to be taken up with the discussion of most important measures, which made it incumbent on every Member to attend, one of the duties they owed to their constituents must be consequently neglected.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the only object he had in view in pressing forward the measures of Government was, that the public business might be despatched with as little delay as possible. If he gave up one of the Order-days, it would be a great injury to the public service.
Second reading postponed.

BATTLE OF NAVARINO.
Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, that he had the best authority for believing, that the course which he proposed to pursue on this occasion was in strict accordance with Parliamentary practice. The Motion which he had to submit was, "That this House resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of examining into the propriety of an Address to his Majesty, humbly requesting, that he will be graciously pleased to take into his consideration the claims for pecuniary recompense of the officers, seamen, and royal marines engaged in the Battle of Navarino, on the 20th of October, 1827." He was sorry to be under the necessity of bringing this subject before the House in any shape, or of giving the House any trouble whatever about it. He was sorry that the Government had not felt it necessary to take up the subject, as he should much prefer leaving it in their hands. As they had not taken it up, he felt, that the duty devolved on him, and however disagreeable to his feelings to bring it forward, he would not shrink from it. Soon after the Battle of Navarino, he wrote to the Lord High Admiral, stating the great destruction of the men's clothes which took place in that action. He had never known of any action in which the loss was so great in that respect. He therefore felt it his duty to submit, that the officers and men were entitled to some compensation for their losses in that respect. The answer he received was, that it was difficult to establish such a precedent, as the practice was, of which the House was probably not aware, that all losses of this kind were made good to the army, but not to the navy. He was told, however, that he might memorialize the Lord High Admiral for head-money, as was done by Lord Exmouth, in the case of the attack on Algiers. He sent that memorial to Sir John Gore, who was sent out to the Mediterranean to make inquiries as to the origin of the action. Sir John Gore subsequently sent that memorial to the Admiralty, and he had reason to know, that it came to the hands of Sir George Cockburn, and Mr. Croker. It was some time before he returned to England, and when he applied at the Admiralty, over which Lord Melville then presided, he was surprised to find, that there was no record there of his memorial. He had declined to present a fresh one, and, after some delay, by the kindness of his Royal Highness the Lord High Admiral an official copy of that me-

497
morial which had been reserved for the Lord High Admiral was obtained, and he then presented that duplicate to the Admiralty. It was long before he received any answer to this, which answer stated, that it was not usual to grant head-money before a declaration of war. Surely it was not intended to quibble on the term. It mattered not whether the term used were head-money, compensation, or royal grant; the object being to reward the exertions and compensate the losses of the parties, it was unworthy of Government to defeat it by quibbling about a word. On receiving the answer referred to, he applied to the Lord High Admiral to learn how he should proceed, and having ascertained the feeling of that illustrious individual, he did proceed according to his directions. Shortly afterwards the Lord High Admiral became King, and he obtained an audience of his Majesty, when he received the royal commands to present a memorial to the King. The present Government declared, that they saw no reason to depart from the decision of their predecessors, though in fact they did depart from it, for they professed a readiness to give a compensation for their lost clothing, which their predecessors had refused. Subsequently he asked another audience of his Majesty, and under the royal command presented a memorial to the King in Council. In all these proceedings he had only acted in compliance with his Majesty's commands, which it was impossible for him to disobey. He had made it known to the fleet, that they could not get compensation for clothes, but that it was the wish of the Lord High Admiral, that he should be memorialized to give head-money, and he had pledged that illustrious individual's name to the parties interested, in proof that their claims would be attended to, and he now submitted, that such a pledge ought not to be violated, If any Gentleman opposed the present Motion, let it be understood, that he was not resisting the will of its immediate proposer, but of the illustrious personage under whose commands he (Sir Edw. Codrington) had acted from the beginning to the end of the transaction. If the Motion were negatived, his Majesty's wish would be defeated, and the Royal pledge would be rendered of no effect. It had been said that head-money was only given in time of war, and, therefore, that it could not be claimed on the present occasion. Now, the fact was, head-money was allowed every day in the case of the capture of
498
negro slaves, where there was no declaration of war, and why should not head-money be allowed for Greek slaves? In cases of piracy, head-money was also allowed. A gallant officer opposite had received a considerable sum (800 l.) as his share. He (Sir Edw. Codrington) did not see why he who had been engaged with persons acting as pirates or still worse (for the object of the Turkish fleet was to exterminate a whole nation) should not stand in the same situation. He wished to put his own merits and claims quite out of the question; he hoped, however, that the noble Lord opposite would do him justice upon one point; the noble Lord was the person to call for certain information relative to the Battle of Navarino, and the opportunity was taken to make most unjust and shameful misrepresentations on the subject in that House. The hon. and gallant Member referred to the capture of Carabusa the principal hold of the pirates in the Levant, which he complained had not been gazetted, though it was of eminent service to our trade, in which the gallant Commodore (Staines) and officers engaged eminently distinguished themselves. The Cambrian frigate was lost, and the crew were deprived of everything; the people were also in the Battle of Navarino, and yet they had not received one farthing compensation for their losses at either place. He must complain too, that of the booty seized at Carabusa not a farthing went to the captors, the whole being claimed as droits of the Admiralty. He could not understand on what ground justice and adequate remuneration could be refused on this occasion, especially when it was considered, that they were never before refused under similar circumstances. The gallant Admiral referred to several instances in which head-money had been granted. It was allowed in the case of the action under Boscawen, in 1755. Admiral Byng obtained it in 1716. In 1804 it was given to Sir Graham Moore's squadron. In the case of the Russian ships it was allowed, and Lord Gambier received head-money for the capture of Copenhagen, although there was no declaration of war. At the time Murat was about to be deposed, the squadron sent by Lord Exmouth was allowed 100,000 l. for taking possession of a fleet which was never actually in our possession, but immediately on its surrender was given to king Ferdinand. In the case of Algiers, Lord Exmouth was sent to negociate on the subject of slavery

499
and other matters, and failing in negotiation he was authorised to use force. This case very closely resembled that of Navarino. He (Sir Edw. Codrington) was also ordered to negotiate, and negotiation failing to use force. What was the distinction between the two cases? The pretence, that because Lord Exmouth recovered a certain sum belonging to Sardinia and Sicily, he was therefore entitled to receive 100,000 l., while the parties who fought at Navarino and relieved a whole people from robbery, murder, and slavery, were not to be remunerated. Such a pretence was absurd; there existed no foundation for the distinction sought to be established. It was a gross anomaly and injustice to treat the parties in the one case differently from the individuals who were concerned in the other. He was not actuated by personal or pecuniary motives in bringing this subject under the notice of the House. The pain, anxiety, and worry, that he had endured in prosecuting it hitherto, were such as no individual benefit to himself could compensate, and he would have willingly abandoned the attempt had not a sense of duty compelled him to persevere. When he expressed to his Majesty his desire that he might relinquish his own share of any compensation, the King would not permit such a step, observing, "You may be in a situation to relinquish it, but probably others will be differently circumstanced." In the case of Algiers the allowance to the fleet was not denominated "head-money," but "a royal grant;" and having since his original application asked for "a pecuniary gratuity," he hoped the expression" head-money," which he originally used, would not be relied on as shutting the persons who served at Navarino out from compensation on the ground that "head-money" could only be allowed after a declaration of war. There were other cases besides that of Algiers in which compensation in lieu of head-money had been granted. In the case of Admiral Byng's action the prizes were by royal grant made over to the captors, notwithstanding, that no declaration of war was made till a long time after. See the effect of allowing no gratuity except in time of war. Such a principle went directly to the encouragement of hostilities that might otherwise be avoided. Had he provoked a war after the Battle of Navarino there would have been no objection to allowing head-money. But he did all he could, and effectually, to put a stop to the continuance of hostilities.
500
In that he admitted he was only acting on his instructions, but he conscientiously observed them, and succeeded in preventing a war. Government ought to consider whether it was not due to the King and to the fleet to make some compensation to the parties engaged in the Battle of Navarino for the losses they had sustained. Men now received nothing for wounds, unless they were pronounced to be entirely disabled for life. He knew an instance of a man who lost an eye, which used to count as the loss of a limb, who was not allowed a farthing; formerly the case was different, and compensation was given. A marine who had been disabled received 9l. the first year, 4l. the second, and nothing in the third. Now, a soldier who suffered in the same manner would have 1s. a-day for life. The result of this want of encouragement was extremely prejudicial to the navy. On board the Albion upon two occasions the men declared, that in future it would be necessary for them to make a bargain before a battle, if they were to be refused compensation afterwards. Having disclaimed any intention or desire to excite party or political feelings on the subject, the gallant Admiral said, that he might nevertheless be permitted to remark, that if the Government and policy of the country had not been changed, the question would never have been treated as it was, and not only a proper gratuity, but compensation for wounds would have been allowed. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving, in the terms before stated, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the subject.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that he not only spoke for himself, but on the part of the Government, when he said, that it was impossible that the hon. and gallant Member could have been engaged more gracefully and honourably than in endeavouring to obtain for the gallant officers and seamen, with whom he had served, rights to which they considered themselves entitled. The hon. and gallant Member had brought forward his Motion in a manner to which not the slightest objection could be made, and he assured the gallant Officer that it was with sincere and unaffected regret, that he felt himself compelled, by a sense of duty, to oppose the Motion which he had made. In stating the reasons which actuated him in so doing, he should have occasion to trouble the House with some circumstances relative to the battle of Navarino, to which the gallant Officer had

501
not alluded. He was sorry to be obliged to enter into the details, but considering the great importance of the subject, the honour of the country, and the merits of the gallant Officer, and the men who had fought under his orders, he was unable to avoid it. The hon. and gallant Officer had intimated, that there was a time when the present Government was disposed to admit the claim which he now brought forward; but he (Mr. Labouchere) was not aware that either the present or any former Government had stated their opinion that the circumstances under which the battle of Navarino took place, gave the officers and seamen who were then engaged, a title to head-money. There was a wide difference between head-money and gratuities. Head-money was a certain sum given in proportion to the number of the enemy, who had been engaged; but that money was given under a specific Act of Parliament, and it could not be bestowed unless a declaration of war had been made before the battle. Gratuities, on the other hand, had been given under particular circumstances—they had been given upon occasions where an action had taken place without a declaration of war having been previously made, or having been declared subsequent to the engagement. He would presently advert to those instances, and he thought he should be able to show a very material difference between these cases and the case of the battle of Navarino. As the hon. and gallant Officer had drawn a conclusion favourable to his own case, from a comparison between it and by-gone transactions, it was necessary to consider what were the circumstances under which the battle of Navarino took place. In the first place, he would read an extract from the instructions which had been given by the Government to the Admiral stationed at Greece at that time. The hon. Gentleman read the passage which directed the Admiral to interfere only as a conciliator, to establish an armistice, but to avoid every hostile attack. It was perfectly clear by that, that the English squadron was not to commence hostilities unless they were actually forced to do so by the Turkish fleet, and that the instructions confined the operations of the English squadron to intercepting any succours from Egypt and Africa reaching the fleet of the Sultan. If the succours in question resorted to violence, then the English squadron was to employ force. But he (Mr. Labouchere) did not find that in these instructions, or in any other do-
502
cument proceeding from the Government, there was the slightest direction given to enter the harbour of Navarino, or that the occurrence of hostilities was contemplated. He did not presume to say, that the gallant Admiral had exceeded the spirit of the intentions of the Government; but he thought it right and fitting at this part of the discussion, to call the attention of the House to the undeniable fact, that the collision which afterwards took place, was one that was not wished nor anticipated by the English Government, much less directed by them in the instructions which were given to the gallant Admiral. With regard to the action itself, he had never known any person who had a competent judgment of such affairs, who did not declare, that in the brilliant and unrivalled annals of the naval history of the British nation, there never was a more daring, gallant, and successful exploit—one that reflected more credit upon the bravery and gallant bearing of both officers and men—than the battle of Navarino. The hon. Member said, he must also bestow high praise on the resolute daring of the hon. and gallant Officer, who, in one single line-of-battleship, a frigate, and two corvettes, boldly intercepted the whole Turkish fleet as they were leaving Navarino for Patras, and succeeded in turning them back to their original position. But, however splendid the action was, and however admirable and unexampled the courage of the British sailors on that occasion, still it was impossible to declare that the action had taken place in conformity with the instructions from the Government. It could not be asserted, that that part of the instructions which directed the gallant Admiral to separate the allied fleet into three classes, for the purpose of watching the Morea, was consonant with the measure which the gallant Admiral afterwards determined upon—that of entering the harbour of Navarino, in order to keep the Turkish fleet in check. He did not pretend to insinuate anything unfavourable to the hon. and gallant Officer, or which could, in the slightest degree, detract from his merits, for he was well aware of the difficult circumstances under which he was placed when he came to that resolution, and of the contingencies which he feared; but what he did say was, that that proceeding was not contemplated by the Government in the instructions which they forwarded to him. In entering the harbour of Navarino, which was occupied by a fleet belong-

503
ing, as was then considered, to a power friendly to England, no one could be surprised, that the collision was brought on by a mere accident, that it spread with rapidity, and terminated in a general action. He would read an extract from the despatches of the gallant Admiral, relating to that circumstance. The hon. Member then read the extract, to show that the origin of the engagement was accidental, and that the circumstances were not very clearly known. The hon. Member also referred to a speech made by Mr. Huskisson, then a Minister of the Crown, in a debate caused by a vote of thanks moved by Sir J. Hobhouse, to the gallant Member. Mr. Huskisson then said,—"The affair in which he had so eminently distinguished himself was not a battle between enemies, it was an accident—a misfortune which could not be foreseen, nor, perhaps, under the circumstances, avoided—it was an event which, in private life, would be styled a chance medley. He was convinced it would be so called in the verdict, if a Coroner's Jury could examine into the merits of it. But it did not follow, that because it was a chance-medley, there might not have been exhibited in it as much gallantry and skill as was ever exhibited by the bravest of men, in the noblest exploits of ancient or modern warfare."* The vote of thanks, he must observe, that was moved by Sir John Hobhouse, was not passed. Nothing, he could assure the House, was further from his mind, than to impute any dishonourable motives to the hon. and gallant Member; but he must call on the House to observe the origin of this action, and ask it to reflect on the example which would be afforded if the proceeding, as he had already stated, were to be sanctioned in the manner required by the hon. and gallant Member. What an advantage might be taken of that example, by other commanders, and to what serious consequences might it lead? With regard to the comparison which the hon. and gallant Member instituted between the battle of Algiers, and the battle of Navarino, he thought that there really was a very important difference between the two cases. What were the circumstances under which the battle of Algiers took place? Lord Exmouth was sent out to put an end to the barbarous practice of capturing and enslaving Christians, which had so long disgraced the Mediterranean sea. He was commissioned
* Hansard (new series) xviii. p. 395.
504
to enter into negotiations upon the subject, and some arrangements were made with the states of Barbary, which he considered perfectly satisfactory, and he, therefore, returned, hoping that the object of his mission had been brought to a favourable issue. These anticipations proved to be premature, and he was then sent out again to Algiers, with directions to make three specific demands, that the engagements which had been entered into, should be ratified, and if an unfavourable answer were returned, then to enter the Bay, and to attack the fleet. Would any man say, that this was a parallel case to the battle of Navarino, and that there was not a very considerable and marked distinction between them? The instructions of Lord Exmouth were, that if his demands were not complied with, then he should resort to immediate hostilities, and attack the enemy's ships in the Mole. In the case of Sir George Byng, which had occurred more than one hundred years ago, he did not think that a parallel could be found. Sir George Byng had received express orders to intercept the Spanish fleet, and to protect Sicily, the safety of which was at that time guaranteed by England. Admiral Byng had express orders to stop the progress of the Spanish fleet. Now, if the hon. and gallant Officer had met the Turkish succours at sea, if he had then stopped them, and if they had persisted in going on to join the Turkish fleet, the case would have been very different, for he would have followed his instructions. The hon. and gallant Officer had mentioned another case, but he did not think that it applied to the question. He (Mr. Labouchere) was not aware that it was necessary for him to trouble the House with any further observations. He had endeavoured to show, that there was a great distinction between the cases of the battle of Navarino, and those in which grants of money had been allowed. The general rule of this country was, not to grant head money, or gratuities to the officers and men engaged in actions, unless they had been preceded by a declaration of war. He was not certainly prepared to say, that that rule had not been extended under especial circumstances to other cases; but he thought, that the case of the hon. and gallant Member, was not one which would authorise the extension of the rule to it. It was with sincere regret, that he felt himself obliged to oppose the motion; yet he did so in the full belief that it was one to which the House could not with propriety agree.
Sir Francis Burdettcould assure the House, that he had felt equally pained with his hon. friend; but he felt pain, that such a Motion should be opposed by his Majesty's Ministers, for he must confess that in whatever light he looked at the case, it appeared to him clearly made out, that justice, policy, and the best interests of the country demanded the grant, and, therefore, the Motion was deserving the favourable consideration of Parliament. It was a question which did the hon. and gallant Member great credit in whatever way it was regarded, and the manner in which he had brought it forward was highly honourable to him. If it were true, unbendingly true, that let the most gallant action be performed which it was in the power of man to perform, placed in the most trying and delicate situation, yet he should, on account of some punctilio, be refused that reward to which he was entitled, he begged them to remember the consequences that must flow from such a doctrine. He could not but call to mind the unparalleled situation in which the hon. and gallant Member was placed. If he had acted with a little less spirit, if he had acted with a little less decision, he would have cast the worst of all discredits that it was possible to cast upon any country or any cause upon them; he would have thrown a stain upon the arms of England, and degraded the character of the British officer. Yes, if he had sailed back from Navarino—if he had not had the honour of his country so deeply at heart, he would have been reproached for not having accomplished the views entertained by Government, and on him would have been imposed the full blame of all the disastrous consequences which might have ensued. The gallant Admiral had met with praise from all quarters—from the officers in the same service as himself, from the nation, and from a Member of that Government who refused his claim—the Secretary of the Admiralty, who was not a stranger to the brilliant achievements of his country—he meant Mr. Croker—who was not ill-calculated to form an opinion of such an action, who was Secretary at the most unrivalled, at the most memorable period of our naval history, and who could not but allow the highest praise to the daring achievement of the hon. and gallant Officer. He well recollected the period when Sir John Hobhouse brought his Motion before the House, and he then totally denied that the hon. and gallant Member had committed any fault. It then appeared to
506
him, that the gallant Admiral deserved all the praise which was so liberally bestowed, that his conduct merited the highest commendations, and that his decision in action, his skill, his good taste, his tact,—he knew not how to describe his various qualities—were equal to that of any of his predecessors who lived in the memory of their country. When he remembered how he obtained the command of the fleet, how he put a stop to the jealousies of the commanders of the allied fleets, and how he contrived to combine their strength, to direct their movements, and unite their efforts, he could not but say, that if any action ever redounded to the honour of a commander, this brilliant achievement redounded to the honour of the hon. and gallant Admiral, and covered him with laurels. But suppose that the hon. and gallant Officer had committed a fault. The question did not there terminate. It was of a two-fold nature. The case of the officers, of the seamen, and marines, still remained. They had nothing to do with the instructions sent out to the gallant Admiral. They were not responsible for his disagreement with the Government. They nobly performed their duty, and on the common principles of justice they were entitled to their reward. What would be the consequences if they mixed up the case of these brave men with a quibble as to the circumstances under which they had entered into the engagement. Might they not expect, in some future critical time, the officers and men to say to their commanders, "Pray are we justified in obeying your orders; show us your instructions." What would then become of the service? If, as it was alleged, there was no precedent for rewarding the men under such circumstances of credit to them, then let a precedent be made; it was, indeed, time to make one. He repeated, that it was impossible to have a stronger case, founded on policy, and the best interests of the nation, to be brought forward. They had heard of the necessity of keeping inviolate the Bank Charter, of preserving untouched a questionable contract with some speculating bankers—they had been called upon in honour to maintain a compact which no one could understand how it existed, but still they were called upon, on the grounds of honour and faith, to keep it. He maintained, that the case of the seamen, to whom the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member related, stood on far better grounds. This claim could not be disputed; there was no

507
doubt of it, and there was no doubt of the danger that would occur, if, after performing services that all men praised—if after hazarding their lives and fortunes, they were not only to be denied their reward; but even denied remuneration for the sacrifice of their property, and the injuries they had sustained. Now, when they brought forward their claim, they were met with some distinction about head-money. He could not understand the distinction; all that he could understand was, that those unfortunate men had been suffering since 1827, and that they ought, on this appeal to the House, to be both rewarded for their conduct, and compensated for their losses. There was no doubt about the merit of the men; and he was sure, that the performance of this act of justice to these men would be hailed throughout the country with the greatest satisfaction. He saw no difference between the cases of Algiers and Navarino. The gallant Admiral was sent out upon a most difficult mission, and he used those means which he found himself bound to adopt. They had performed that very action. The hon. and gallant Admiral was in a difficult and singular situation at Navarino; but his position in that House was still more singular. He should give his cordial support to the Motion. It was the first time in the annals of history, that a distinguished officer, after having achieved an action which reflected the highest honour upon his country, was compelled in that House to defend himself; to hear himself censured for having said, he hoped that the House would consent to relieve these ill-treated seamen, and do them that tardy justice which had been so long delayed.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he conceived himself called upon to make a few observations, in consequence of the reference which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member to what took place about a year after the affair of Patras had taken place, between the then Ministers and himself, in respect to that subject. The question that he had then asked was, why the action was not gazetted; for he had always felt, that it was one of the most brilliant which had occurred in our naval history. The answer which he then received, gave him a certain degree of doubt as to the origin of the action; and it was stated, that no shots were fired from the Turkish fleet; but he had since ascertained that many shots were fired. With regard to the daring nature of that enterprise, if it were not to be called the most brilliant—if
508
it were not to be admitted as inferior to no other—if it were not superior—an action in which one line-of-battle ship, one sloop of war, and one frigate, opposed fifty sail of vessels, some of them of no mean size, and well-armed and manned, and compelled the whole fleet to return to their original position—if that was not a brilliant action, then, indeed, he did not know what other engagement could be dignified by that appellation. He was perfectly ready to give his opinion, and his hon. and gallant friend knew, that he was very accurately aware of what took place on that occasion as to the commencement of the action, and to acquit his hon. and gallant friend of any unfounded censure or misrepresentation to which he might have been subjected on that point. With respect to the question before the House, and with regard to the conduct of the gallant Admiral before the battle of Navarino, he wished not to throw out any insinuations against him, or, in the observations which he should make, to give him any unpleasant feelings. The situation of the hon. and gallant Admiral, under the circumstances and difficulties by which he was encompassed, was a very arduous one, and no man could throw the slightest blame upon him for going into the port of Navarino. The question, when he and his colleagues came into office, stood thus—an application had been made by the hon. and gallant Admiral to the Government which preceded the present Administration, and who were of opinion that the gratuity ought not to be awarded. The application was then made to the present Government, who had not employed his hon. and gallant friend, and who had not even been the next in succession to the Government that employed him. They were then called upon to consider the propriety of reversing the decision which had been given by the former Government upon this question. He appealed to his hon. friend, although, perhaps, it was not right to revert to those decisions, whether those appeals were different from the present statement. The action commenced accidentally, as his hon. friend had already stated, and it was not intended by the Government which employed the hon. and gallant Officer, that he should attack the Turkish fleet. As the action, therefore, was quite accidental, and as the claim was quite unprecedented, the question was, whether they ought to reverse the decision of the Government, under the order of

509
which the action took place.—[Sir E. Codrington: Mr. Canning gave me my orders.]—It was true that Mr. Canning was at the head of the Government at the time the orders were issued, but the Government under which the action occurred, was essentially the same as that which had given the hon. and gallant Member his instructions. At least the Government had not reversed those instructions. His gallant friend acted under those instructions; and, as far as he was aware, there had been no change in the instructions given by Mr. Canning. That Government, therefore, ought to have been the best judge of the propriety of awarding head-money, and he did not see any reason to alter its decision. In his opinion, his hon. and gallant friend, and the brave fleet under his command, merited all the praise they had received, for that brilliant achievement. As to the losses which the men had suffered in their property on the occasion, he would only say, that any such claims always met with prompt attention from the Admiralty, The few claims of the kind, in connexion with this action, that had been laid before the Admiralty, had been immediately satisfied. The question now, however, for the House to consider was, whether in a case where the action had arisen from accident, it would be right to give this gratuity to the fleet that had achieved an action under such circumstances? He trusted he need not say, that it was with great regret he opposed the Motion; but the Government felt, that, under the circumstances, they would not be justified in adopting any other course.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, it was always an agreeable task to join in praise of the brave defenders of their country, whether officers or men, and he was proud on this occasion to add his humble meed of eulogy to that already bestowed on the gallant Admiral and his heroic band. But in addition to this expression of his feelings, he was anxious to make a very few observations on what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere), on the subject in debate. He had listened to the objections raised against this Motion with the utmost attention, but had not heard one which was not susceptible of refutation. The hon. Gentleman began by reading the instructions issued to the gallant Admiral, by which he was commanded to take great care to prevent the Turkish fleet getting to the Morea, and to intercept them in their voyage there, if possible; and it was
510
admitted, that if the fleet had been met at sea, and persisted in going to the Morea, it would have been right to give them battle. But surely when they had actually entered a port of the Morea, they were not the less, but rather the more, to be carefully watched, and, if possible, driven from their well-known purpose. The Admiral found them so entered and in possession, and he most wisely entered after them, to keep them in check. In doing so, he was first attacked, and as a British seaman, he instantly replied to that attack, by answering in language not to be misunderstood. It had been said, indeed, that there was no declaration of war; but if the seamen were to be asked their opinion of this matter, they would no doubt say, that the most unequivocal declaration of war was made the moment the first shot was fired. It was not, perhaps, a declaration in the legal and technical sense, but it was more than a declaration, it was an act of war; and as such it had been fairly met and gallantly repelled. The officers and men had then performed their duty. No doubt had been expressed of that; and he would put it to the House, whether the whole country would not say, that, in encountering the same risk of life and limb in this, as in the most formal warfare, they were as fairly entitled to honours and rewards? It had been said, indeed, that this would be an encouragement to others to provoke a battle, for the sake of the gratuities to be obtained. This argument might have some weight if the British had, in the present instance, been the aggressors. But it was notorious that they were merely defending themselves from the aggressions of others, and, therefore, to reward those who acted most prudently and justifiably on the defensive, could never be cited as a precedent for bestowing the same rewards on those who acted imprudently and unjustifiably on the aggressive. There was another point of view in which this subject should be regarded: it was this:—The pay of the seamen in the navy was much lower than that in the merchant service—their service was forced instead of free—their discipline was more severe, and their confinement and privations greater; and all these were palliated by the constant assertion, that these evils (for they were not denied to be such) were counterbalanced by their chance of prize-money, bounties, and gratuities, to which their services in war entitled them. What, then, would the seamen of England say, when they found that, though they

511
fought and did their duty at Navarino, as well as on any occasion in our naval history, they were yet not to be paid that compensation for those risks, because of sonic technicalities of which they could not possibly have any knowledge? The reputation of the House and the country could not fail to suffer by such ingratitude; and he was not sure, but the fidelity of the seamen themselves, as well as their zeal, might be much endangered in the future, by withholding from them this just reward for their bravery and exertions in the past. For these and many other reasons, which he would not now press, as he was sure the feeling of the House would go along with him, and render any lengthened debate quite unnecessary, he should cordially support the gallant Admiral's Motion.
Mr. Warburtonwould ask, if any one had pointed out what course the gallant Admiral could have pursued other than he had pursued, namely, to enter the bay of Navarino? Why, then, should the seamen employed in that expedition, be treated differently from those engaged in other expeditions of a similar nature? The proper course would be, if an error had been committed, or if the gallant Admiral who commanded exceeded his orders, to call him to a Court-martial. If he had erred, let him be punished; but why refuse to the seamen the reward which they had so well earned.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that his principle always was, not to pay those who did not deserve payment, but to pay those well who deserved it. Acting on this principle, he would vote that those seamen who fought so well at Navarino, should be rewarded. The men, in his opinion, ought not to be refused the customary reward on account of any error committed by the commanding officer. In such a case, the proper course would be, to call the gallant Admiral to answer any charge which might be brought against him before a Court-martial. But in this case the Government, by the mere fact of not calling on the gallant Admiral to answer any charge, had tacitly, though not expressly, approved of his conduct. Whatever the opinions of different parties might be, all would acknowledge, that the gallant Admiral had achieved a brilliant victory in the cause of humanity and liberty. The special pleading would be quite unintelligible to the seamen themselves by which they were to be deprived of the customary reward. There was no special pleading when called
512
on to do their duty. No! they did what English sailors would always do—they annihilated the fleet they were ordered to fight, and they could not do more. It was time, that the Government of this country should at last accord to those brave men the praise which was freely admitted to them by the whole world. It was time for the House of Commons to tell the people of England, that those seamen might be recompensed, and he would, therefore, cordially support the Motion.
Mr. John Stanleyhoped, after the expression of opinion by the House in favour of the Motion, that the Government would not persist in its opposition. The gallant Officer had acted strictly according to his instructions, and it was the duty of the House to see justice done to the gallant seamen under his command.
Sir John Sebrightsaid, he recollected his father having mentioned a speech made by a gallant Admiral in that House, on an occasion similar to the present. It was made at a time when speakers were not so numerous as at present, and when none spoke who had not something to say. That such was not now always the case, he was afraid he should be one of the living proofs. A t that time, officers in the navy had not the eloquence of the hon. and gallant Admiral who had brought forward the present Motion; but an old Admiral, who had never been known to address the House before, got up with his mouth full of tobacco, and, much to the surprise of all present, addressed the Speaker as follows:—"Mr. Speaker, I am not an orator, and I don't know how I could be, seeing that I have been forty years at sea; but this I know, that if you don't pay those who serve you well, you'll not be served at all." That story was applicable to the present question, and illustrated the view he took of it.
Mr. George Youngconsidered, that it would be a dangerous precedent if the House negatived this Motion, as it might be an inducement to seamen hereafter, to question the commands of their officers, if they should not be paid the customary gratuity merely on account of an error of judgment on the part of a commanding officer. He did not think, even if the gallant Admiral were found guilty by a Court-martial of exceeding his orders, that that would be a sufficient ground for invalidating the claim of the seamen. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would not continue his opposition to the motion;

513
or, at all events, that he would find himself relieved of any responsibility on this score, by finding himself in a minority.
Sir Robert Pricehoped his noble friend would withdraw his opposition to a motion in favour of which there appeared to be an almost unanimous feeling in the House. He would earnestly entreat of the noble Lord not to persist in his opposition.
Admiral Adamsupported the Motion, and said, that the gallant Admiral had done himself great honour by his disinterestedness throughout the transaction. It was clear, that his gallant friend had no expectation of fighting when he entered the Bay, and it was equally clear, that by so doing, he fulfilled his instructions in the best manner, and saved the Morea.
Mr. Humehad great doubts as to the propriety of acceding to this Motion. He said this with regret; for no one had a higher sense of the gallantry of the hon. and gallant Admiral than he had, or was more ready to accord him his meed of admiration. He was, however, disposed to go with the noble Lord in the opinion which he expressed, and for the same reasons. The general sentiments of the House, however, showed, that the noble Lord would be left in a minority, and he would, therefore, recommend to him not to press his opposition to a division. He could not but regret the result of the battle, in as far as it destroyed the Turkish fleet, and thereby laid Turkey prostrate at the feet of Russia.
Mr. Hodgessupported the Motion. To deny the sailor compensation when he had gained a battle might make him waver when the country was in danger.
Lord Althorprose and said, that he had formerly stated his reason for opposing this Motion; but no one seemed to concur with him in his opposition but the hon. member for Middlesex. In such circumstances, he could not think of dividing the House on the question, and would, therefore, not persist in his opposition; and he hoped his hon. and gallant friend would allow him to congratulate him on the result of his Motion. He was sure, that his gallant friend well knew, that any opposition which he gave to it was merely from a sense of duty. He would only add, that this result was a reward which the hon. and gallant Admiral well deserved for his distinguished conduct throughout the transaction.
The Motion was carried; the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the 25th.

EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND.
Mr. Colquhoun Mr. Colquhoun moved for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate and enlarge the provision for parochial Education in Scotland. In every parish in Scotland there was not only a parish-church, but a parish-school paid like the Church, by the heritors, the master of which was appointed by them. It was placed under the superintendence of the clergy, and the master of it passed under their review. The system had been in operation for above two centuries; but about a century and a-half ago it was completed, and the principle of the system that there should be a school for every thousand persons was nearly realized by there being a school in each parish. But, since then, the population of Scotland had more than doubled—it had risen from 1,000,000 to 2,330,000; and, as there had been no corresponding increase in parochial schools, the number of parishes in Scotland being 907, and the parochial schools of Scotland, at this moment, being 1,005, it was clear, that the provision of parochial education was not now adequate. By the last census, it appeared, that there were in Glasgow 46,000 between the ages of five and fifteen; that was, between one-forth and one-fifth of the population at an age to receive education. In Prussia, by the last census, 2,000,000 out of 12,000,000 were between the ages of seven and fourteen; in the United States, there was a still larger proportion. Now, in Prussia, there were 2,000,000 persons, or one-sixth of the population, actually received education; in the State of New York, one-fourth; and, in Holland,—a country the authority of which he preferred to either of the others,—one-fifth of the population were receiving education. The result of the inquiries of the Committee of the General Assembly was similar. To educate the population of the Highlands (upwards of 500,000) there should be 83,000 at school, or one-sixth. Such was actually the state of several of the Lowland parishes. One parish, Foss-away, had one-fourth of the population at school; Comrie and Mid-Calder, had each one-fifth; Colington, Ruthwell, Kirkwall, and Tongue, had each one-sixth; so that he assumed one-sixth of the population as the proportion requiring education. Applying that test to the towns of Scotland, their deficiency in the means of education would be apparent. In Glasgow, about one-fourteenth was at school; at Dundee, one-fifteenth; at Perth, under one-fifteenth; at Old Aberdeen, one-twenty-fifth; at

515
Paisley, (the Abbey-parish, containing nearly one-half of the population,) one-twentieth. In Paisley, thirty years ago, there was not a family who could not read, and had not a Bible—all above nine could read, or were at school; whereas, by a very accurate scrutiny, made in one parish, it now appeared, that there were, in Paisley, 3,000 families without education, and the children of which were growing up wholly untaught. In Glasgow, there were 20,000 growing up uneducated; and, it appeared, that there were from 6,000 to 7,000 persons living by crime, a large proportion of whom were young. Of the Highlands, there were authentic returns; and what was their state as to education? In the 143 Highland parishes, out of 500,000, there were 83,000 who could not read, and had no means of learning; 250,000 could not write. In the 132 parishes of Banff, Elgin, and Aberdeen, the average of the persons at school was one-eleventh; and there were instances of one-twelfth, one-thirteenth, one-fifteenth, and one-twentieth, in other parishes taken indiscriminately over the south and central parts of Scotland. In one parish in the county of Berwick, the proportion at school was one-fifteenth; in two parishes in Edinburgh and Wigton, one-eleventh; in a parish in the county of Stirling, one-twelfth; in a parish in the county of Dumbarton, one-thirteenth; and several of these instances occurred in rural parishes; the two worst instances being in the counties of Banff and Aberdeen, in one of which there was only one-thirteenth at school, and in the other one-twentieth—and both were rural parishes. He was aware that Scotland ranked high in the estimation of all, on the subject of education. He was sorry to contest that opinion, but it was the best and the truest policy to exhibit clearly the state of the case, in order that the evil might be remedied. What was the remedy? Many supposed it might be found in schools established by private teachers. But the Assembly's Committee said, that a schoolmaster ought to have at least 40 l. a-year, with accommodations. But the average fees of a private teacher over the whole Highlands, were ascertained to be 13 l. per annum. In Shetland, the average was 3l. One parish in the county of Dumbarton paid 15 l.; two paid 4l. each. In the Returns, from 15 l. to 25 l. was the most frequent answer; 25 l. and 30 l. rare; a larger remuneration was still more uncommon. It was not to be supposed that a schoolmaster could live upon that which
516
was insufficient for the worst-paid day labourer, and these private schools were often taught by the most incompetent persons, such as "boys and aged females, a retired soldier, a fisherman, an innkeeper." Five out of seven schools of private adventure in one parish, in the Lowlands, and in another parish, four out of the nine were taught by women. But it was supposed, that in towns where the population was more dense, private teachers might have a larger number of scholars. On the contrary, the average attendance in towns was less than in the Highland parishes, and the receipts of the schoolmasters varied from 15 l. to 25 l., sometimes 35 l.—more rarely 40 l. In one town, five out of the twelve schools were kept by females. If they would, therefore, secure well-paid masters and a respectable school, they must have something besides the fees, by which alone the master could not support himself; in other words, there must be a permanent salary. Some might suppose, that the endowment might flow from charitable contribution. But in the Highlands when the General Assembly investigated their state, they required 450 schools, or 450 endowments for the masters. They had eighty-five; and far beyond that it did not appear that their exertions could extend. But, moreover, the endowments should be adequate, not an overgrown salary, but such a decent maintenance as an income of 40 l. Taking that as the standard, the salaries of many of the parochial schoolmasters in Scotland were lamentably inadequate. In one Highland parish, the Report of the Assembly's Committee said, the schoolmaster had three guineas per annum; in eleven parishes in Argyleshire, the salaries did not amount to above 10 l. or 11 l. each. In three counties the salaries were as low as 8l., 17 l., 19 l.;the salary and fees together, 19 l., 20 l., 23 l., 28 l. Either inferior men would take the situation, or superior men taking it, would turn their attention to other occupations, by which they might be enabled to eke out their income. Educated men would not be satisfied with wages which would not satisfy a farm servant; many of the parochial schools were, therefore, in a deplorable condition. Another point of almost equal importance was the superintendence and moral agency which should accompany the parochial school. Those who established the system had an eye to this, when they connected parochial schools with parochial churches, and blended the provision for

517
schools with the provision for religious instruction. If they merely gave a good salary to a master, they might have an indolent and inefficient teacher; there must, therefore, be over him a local superintendence. But they might establish a good school, and plant in the school a good master, fix a low rate of payment, and make the school accessible to the whole people of the parish, and still the school might not be filled; for without the agency of the parish minister, visiting the people, and urging them to send their children to school, they might have little inclination to send them or to resist the many temptations to keep them away, or prematurely withdraw them. He had found, that in almost every instance in which the parish schools were well filled, the clergyman was active and zealous. In one instance where the clerical agency was not very active, one twenty-fifth of the population only went to school; but in a small district assigned to a chapel of ease, the minister of which was exceedingly active, the proportion was as high as one-tenth. The hon. Member quoted several other instances of the good effects of placing schools under the super-intendence of the clergy, and then said, he had established, he hoped, the case, which it was his object to bring before the House, that there was a great deficiency of education in Scotland; that it was necessary that that deficiency should be supplied, and that it could be supplied only by establishing additional schools, and providing the masters of them with a reasonable salary, through the medium of an endowment. He was aware his hon. friend, the member for Ross-shire, was inclined to prefer the principle adopted by the Government in the education grant for England, namely, that of applying money to the erection of schools and school-houses. Experience was decisive against that opinion. The Committee of the General Assembly had established eighty-five schools, and had never found the slightest difficulty in having school-houses and other accommodations erected by the voluntary liberality of the heritors; and the Secretary of that Committee had informed him that they had now hundreds of applications from heritors offering to build the schools and houses, if the Assembly would secure them a provision for the masters. Was it, therefore, too much to expect that the liberality of Parliament should beextended to Scotland? The sum which he proposed to be annually granted for the extension of the means of
518
education in Scotland was 60,000 l.; and he trusted, that the House would not consider that an extravagant sum. The expense to the country of maintaining a metropolitan police alone, was considerably more than 200,000 l. a-year; and the expense of maintaining the police of Edinburgh and Glasgow was greater than the amount of the grant he proposed. When the House, therefore, considered the influence which education had in the suppression of crime, he trusted, his proposal would appear deserving the concurrence of hon. Members, on the mere ground of economical Government. The case in Scotland was once the same as it was in Ireland now. A century had not elapsed since there was agitation in the former country, and when garrisons and a standing army were necessary to preserve public tranquillity. Scotland had her Whitefeet and her Blackfeet and her Captain Rock, whose history had been preserved by her great novelist. The beneficial change which had since taken place, was principally to be ascribed to the diffusion of education in the country; and it would still be found that, as education prevailed, crime would be suppressed, and the peace and tranquillity of the country be preserved. The hon. Gentleman then concluded, by moving for leave to bring in his Bill.
Mr. Humesaid, that he was a warm friend to education; but he doubted whether the bringing in the hon. Gentleman's Bill at present would not defeat the object he had in view. He would suggest to the hon. Member, whether the most proper course to pursue would not, in the first instance, be to move for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the state of education in Scotland, and then the House could act on the Report of that Committee to whatever extent should appear to it most advisable.
Mr. Stewart Mackenzieconcurred with the hon. member for Middlesex in suggesting the propriety of an inquiry previous to legislating on the subject.
Mr. Aglionbywas also of opinion, that it would be premature to legislate on the subject without previously appointing a Committee of Inquiry.
Sir George Stricklandsaid, the House should not rashly agree to large grants of the public money for such purposes as those contemplated by the hon. Member. If 60,000 l. were annually granted to promote parochial education in Scotland, how large would be the sum the House would be

519
called on to vote to England for the same purpose, when the difference in the amount of the population of the two countries was considered?
Sir Daniel Sandfordcordially concurred with the hon. member for Middlesex in suggesting the propriety of appointing a Committee of Inquiry previous to bringing in any Bill on the subject. He thought that a Committee might be appointed, and witnesses got up from Scotland and examined (for only four or five would be required), in sufficient time to enable the hon. Member to carry his measure during the present Session, notwithstanding its advanced state. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was in the habit of annually instituting inquiries into the state of education in that country; and the venerable Moderator of that Assembly would at once furnish the Committee with many valuable documents on the subject, which, with the examination of two or three witnesses, would afford all the information that would be requisite.
Lord Althorpdiffered in opinion from the hon. and learned member for Paisley, when he said, that there would be sufficient time for the examination of witnesses, after getting them up from Scotland, this Session. He agreed with those hon. Gentlemen who thought that, unless there were further information on the subject before the House, it would be premature to legislate on the matter. He did not wish to institute any comparison between the system of education adopted in England and that which was pursued in Scotland; but he must say, that his own opinion was, that the system which had been adopted as to England should be adopted for Scotland. He (Lord Althorp) thought that the better plan for the hon. Gentleman to have pursued would have been to bring in the Bill and refer it to a Committee up-stairs.
Motion withdrawn.
Mr. Buckinghamrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent duelling, but the House was counted out.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of ABERDEEN, from Belhelvie, for a Better System of Church Patronage in Scotland; and from two Places, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By Lord TEYNHAM, from Dundalk, for an Inquiry into the necessity of Establishing a Harbour at that Port.—By the Bishop of EXETER, from two Places, against the Sale of Beer Act.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON and Lord TENTERDEN, from several Places,—against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By the Marquess CAMDEN, from five Places, against the Admission of Dissenters to the Universities.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, Marquess CAMDEN, and the Earl of WINCHILSEA, for Protection to the Established Church, and against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By the same, Lord ROLLE, and the Bishops of CARLISLE, St. ASAPH, and EXETER,—against the Separation of Church and State.—By the Earl of DURHAM, from Brechin, in favour of the Separation of Church and State; from Uxbridge, for a Reform of the Church Establishment.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Hampstead, for renewing and extending the Labour Rate Act.—By the Earl of DURHAM, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for the Repeal of the Stamp Duties on Receipts; from three Dissenting Congregations, for Relief to the Dissenters.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from Dawley, against Altering the Sale of Beer Act; and from some Individuals, for Reforming the Ecclesiastical Laws.

THE RIBAND TRADE.
Viscount Strangfordsaid, that the petitions which he was about to present were so very numerously signed, described with so much force and truth the unmerited sufferings of a large portion of the community, and involved considerations of such vast national importance, that he could not content himself with the mere routine process of moving that they should be read at their Lordships' Table, only to be swept away the next moment into the bag which lay beneath it. He thought, that much more was due to the petitioners, and to the unfortunate condition in which they were placed; and it was his intention, so soon as the House should have permitted them to be read, to move that they be referred to a Select Committee, for the purpose of determining what degree of relief could be afforded in the matters of which they complained. The petitions were from the city of Coventry, and from a number of places and districts connected with it, and, like Coventry, mainly dependant on the riband trade for support. They complained of the great and intolerable distress into which that trade had fallen, and they attributed
480
it to the overwhelming importation, legal and illegal, of French ribands into the British dominions. The petitioners believed, that the only remedy to this evil was prohibition, and they maintained, that they had peculiar and distinct claims to that remedy, altogether different from those possessed by other branches of trade. The case of the silk trade in general, was submitted in 1832 to a Committee of the House of Commons; a boon, if such it might be called, for which that trade was indebted to the persevering efforts and to the talents and research displayed by a noble Earl, the member for Cheshire, who brought to the examination of the question a degree of ability which it would indeed be well for those petitioners if their humble advocate this night possessed. The labours of the Committee produced one of the largest volumes of printed evidence that ever yet was laid on the Table of Parliament. But no Report was founded on that vast mass of evidence, no recommendation nor result whatever came from it, nor benefit to any one but the printer who was paid for it. He could assert, that he had gone through the contents of that bulky volume, and he did not hesitate to aver, that four-fifths of it were as strongly in favour of actual prohibition (at least so far as the riband trade was concerned) as it was possible for human testimony to be. He stated this fact in justification of what would, he feared, appear to some of their Lordships the unreasonable exorbitance of the request made in some of those petitions. Although the whole of the silk-manufacturers of Great Britain had suffered in a greater or less degree by the overwhelming inundation of French silk goods, still, if any one branch of it had been more deeply and vitally injured than another, it had been the manufacture of the superior sorts of ribands. The description of ribands that now was, and had for years been, most in vogue, was what was called fancy gauze. In the value of that article, there was but a very small proportion of silk, and a very great proportion of labour, 41½ per cent, he believed, on the total value, and, therefore, was a most improperly-selected subject for experiment. In the fabrication of these ribands, the French had several great advantages over us—cheapness of labour, better material, (which they took good care to keep to themselves), and, above all, the privilege and the priority of prescribing the fashion, the consequence of all which was, that by far the greatest part

481
of the gauze ribands used in this country was imported from France. The town of St. Etienne, where they were principally made, was rapidly increasing in size and prosperity. Above 500 looms were annually added to those previously in operation, while, on the other hand, Coventry and its dependencies were reduced to the very lowest ebb of distress. The French silk trade, too, had one great advantage over the English in possessing a copious supply of native silk, the exportation of which from France was strictly prohibited until lately, when, in consequence of the just representations made by the trade here of the unfairness of letting French goods come to England, while the raw silk of that country was not allowed to be exported, the prohibition as to raw silk was rescinded; but, at the same time, an export duty of 7½ per cent was put upon it. This permission to export raw silk had been greatly vaunted in another place, as having removed one of the principal complaints of our manufacturers, and a sort of Io Pæan had been sung or said for the concession thus obtained, But the fact was, that the prohibition to export the raw material was not the principal complaint, nor anything like the principal complaint, of our manufacturers. What they principally complained of was, the want of due protection against the multiplied advantages which the French possessed over us, one of the least of which, in point of value, though certainly the most unfair in point of principle, was the monopoly of the raw material. The importance of this monopoly to France, and its disadvantage to us, was a mere question of relative price. It secured to her manufacturers, the raw material at a lower rate than that at which we could obtain it; and as a question of relative price, it remained still under this export duty of 7½ per cent; so that, in the purchase of materials with which to begin the manufacture of an article wherein the French were asserted to have taste and ingenuity so far superior to us, there was also a very important preference over us in price secured to them at the very outset. And here he would beg leave to remark, that our own conduct to France in reference to the supply of the raw material was very different indeed. Their manufacturers resorted here for China and Bengal raw silks, which they obtained in England, on precisely the same terms as the English manufacturer; nor had any attempt been made to restrain their access to our market.
482
It had been said, that this permission for the exportation of raw silk from France to this country, was the result of a strong and friendly feeling towards England which had sprung up there, and which had been manifested by a petition from the French manufacturers to the Chamber of Deputies, praying that the exportation might be allowed. But what was the fact? The exportation so permitted was not the result of this supposed friendly feeling. It was the result of nothing else (Dr. Bowring was his witness) than of an apprehension, lest an injustice so monstrous should force us again to put our own old prohibitory system in force. It would show, however, how little there was in France of a real desire to deal liberally with this country; it would prove how attentive the French Government was, to secure every possible advantage to its own subjects, when it was stated, that although there had been this great and magnanimous display of liberality in letting out the raw silk of France burthened with a duty which still made it come higher to the English than to the French manufacturer, yet that, in the case of the peculiar material necessary for the fabrication of gauzes and gauze riband (which material was called marabout, and which exceeded the sort in use in England much more than the French raw silk exceeded the raw silk which we had, and without which material these gauzes never could be made as good as theirs), the prohibition was still most rigidly enforced. So, in addition to cheapness of labour, the lead and priority of fashion, and their acknowledged or supposed superior skill and aptitude, the French were to have also an exclusive monopoly of the only material out of which the article could be fabricated. And yet we talked of competition, and called for bricks when straw wherewith to make them was denied. Competition indeed! Of the impossibility of anything like fair competition between the English and French riband manufacturers, Dr. Bowring was again his witness? Hear what Dr. Bowring said in the printed evidence before the House of Commons:—'Do you mean to say, that they are ribands and fine fancy goods?—No, I do not believe, that England can at all compete with France in ribands and fancy goods. I stated, as a general principle, that where taste and beauty form a considerable part of the cost of production, there is no present and immediate chance of competition.' And again, 'I have again to state, that the

483
export of English goods to France consists principally of low goods. I must repeat in the strongest terms my conviction, that where competition is to be feared is precisely where taste forms a very considerable component part of the production, and that the taste in France is, by universal acknowledgment, much more advanced than that of England.' But there were other and stronger reasons for the impossibility of equal competition; and it was no less truly than pathetically stated in one of those petitions (that from the Foleshill weavers) that, bowed down to the earth by the pressure of increasing and intolerable misery, all their thoughts occupied in devising the means of procuring a morsel of bread for their perishing families, "they had little energy and spirits to devote to anticipating the caprices of fashion, or to the cultivation of taste and invention." In looking over this vast mass of evidence, nothing had struck him more forcibly than the contrast between the systematic protection and support given by the French government to their own artizans, and that afforded to those of Great Britain by his Majesty's Ministers. He thought, that the difference was in no point more plainly shown than in the disregard which had been manifested towards the adoption of any one of the safe and ingenious plans for the suppression of smuggling in foreign silks which were suggested in the evidence before the House of Commons. They involved no inconvenience, no expense, no unnecessary restriction upon trade, and yet not one of them had ever been tried. The experiment was surely worth trying. But, then, it would have benefitted the English manufacturer, and have excited complaint and remonstrance in a quarter where remonstrance, he feared, sometimes partook of the nature of command. He could tell the noble Lord what the British silk trade thought of this indifference to their interests on a most essential point. They thought that it was the fixed design of the Board of Trade to drive them to consent to a favourite scheme of that Board, namely, a still further reduction of the duties on imported silk goods. They were confirmed in this opinion by the evidence of one of the Secretaries of the Board of Trade himself (Mr. Deacon Hume), who actually argued against too much strictness in the detection of smuggling, lest the French should be provoked to retaliate. But, above all, they were confirmed in this opinion by the extraordinary, he would say the illegal,
484
favour shown to the French by passing "figured" silk goods through our Custom House as "plain." The schedule of duties fixed a duty of 11 s. per lb. on "plain" and 15 s. on "figured" silks. It was discovered some months ago, that very large quantities of figured goods passed as plain on the payment of the lower duty; and it appeared, that this had been done in consequence of representations from the importers to the Board of Customs, that the goods in question, though apparently "figured," were in reality made in "plain looms," the fact being, that they were really and undeniably "figured," and that the representation was false and fraudulent, to save 4s. in the pound weight on the duty. Upon the silk-manufacturers complaining to the Board of Customs of this infraction of the law, and upon full proof being given of the fraud which had been practised, an order was immediately issued that such goods should in future pay the whole duty chargeable upon figured silks. This order was acted upon for several months, and under it the full legal duty was collected. To the astonishment, however, of the silk-manufacturers they had since learned that the Commissioners of Customs received instructions a few weeks ago from the Treasury, founded on representations from the Board of Trade, to rescind their order for the enforcement of the legal duty on figured silks. And the Board had given instructions to its officers accordingly. It was pretended that considerable doubts arose as to whether certain goods were plain or figured. No doubt, however, need be entertained, as persons well and practically acquainted with the subject could testify, that the distinction was clear and certain. But when the Board of Trade had the matter under consideration they consulted, as he was credibly informed, not with the manufacturers, but with the importers; not with the parties receiving, but with the parties inflicting, injury. The French government too had remonstrated, and had given to ours their disinterested and trustworthy testimony that the goods were plain. So the French construction of an English Act of Parliament prevailed; the English manufacturers were not consulted, the importers were; and the interests of the former were sacrificed to advance the profits of the latter. The silk trade, at least all those connected with it with whom he had conversed on the subject (and he had spoken with many of every sort and

485
description of party and political feeling), the silk trade declared, that in addition to this general indisposition to consult their interests, and this covert desire to force, by some means or other, a further reduction of that scanty and grudging protection which they still possessed, there were two great grievances of which they had reason to complain. The first was, that the amount of protection (he was speaking of the broad silk trade) granted to them by Parliament was arbitrarily diminished by the Board of Trade directing, that less than the legal duty should be taken. The second, which applied mainly to the riband-weavers, was, that, although every facility was given to the French in bringing their goods into this market, and that the ruin of thousands of industrious families was the consequence, still they denied to us the very material out of which alone ribands as good as theirs could be manufactured. What a contrast did all this present! On the one hand, there was the French government keenly and sensitively alive to every the smallest circumstance that could benefit or injure or in any way affect their people; while, on the other, that of England, witnessing coldly and calmly the misery and desolation created by the almost total transfer of the Coventry trade to France, exposed themselves to the imputation—he would go no further—to the imputation, at least, of having, in the pursuit of a favourite theory, contrived to throw every little additional advantage in the way of the French, and every impediment and disadvantage in that of the British manufacturers. Of the result of this course of conduct, as far as France was concerned, the official document which he was about to produce, to the House would speak volumes. It was a comparative statement of the value and weight of French silk goods admitted into the port of London only during the first four months of 1833 and 1834:—

Imports of Foreign Silk Goods into the Port of London the first Four Months of 1833 and of 1834.

January

By value

£7,173

£32,644

By weight

lbs. 649

lbs. 564

February

By value

£13,871

£54,706

By weight

lbs. 24

lbs. 967

March

By value

£49,101

£90,579

By weight

lbs. 341

lbs. 2,184

April

By value

£40,107

£41,042

By weight

lbs. 928

lbs. 1,771

Total

By value

£110,252

£218,971

By weight

lbs. 1,942

lbs. 5,486

486
After this palpable demonstration of French prosperity, at our expense, could we wonder that our own artizans were starving, and that they were discontented with the land they lived in, and with those who governed it? And this led him to the most painful part of the subject, the misery and wretchedness of the various towns and districts from which these petitions proceeded. He had no local knowledge of these places—he was unacquainted with any one individual there—he had never been there in his life—he could not, therefore, speak from his own knowledge; but he had endeavoured to collect the best information he could; and he would proceed to lay it before the House in the shape of sundry letters which he had received during the last month from clergymen and Magistrates residing in the places in question. [The noble Lord here read to the House a number of letters from Coventry and the parishes in its immediate neighbourhood, giving a description of great distress in those places.] These were, indeed, most frightful pictures. He would ask noble Lords whether they really thought, that such a state of things, morally and politically, could long endure? If they did, he could only say, that they had formed a larger estimate of the powers of human patience than he was prepared to make. And for whom, or for what, had these vast sacrifices of human happiness been made? The question of cui bono forced itself on every man's mind. If, indeed, it could be shown that, out of the ruins of Coventry, other cities and towns were likely to rise into eminence and prosperity—if other parts and places of the empire were to be made richer or happier by her passing away from the map of England—it might then become their duty, however painful and severe, to leave her to her fate, and to make no efforts to save her. But, in the case before them, it was not a portion of their own fellow-subjects whom they were called upon to sacrifice for the sake of bettering the condition of the remainder. The only party which could, by any possibility, be benefited neither belonged nor were connected with us; and he could not understand why, he would not say Coventry, but the meanest village in the empire, should be doomed to destruction, merely that a French town should rise triumphantly on its ruins. This might be called illiberality; but he was no professor of that liberalism which would take the very life-blood of tens of thousands of our industrious population at home to

487
pamper the prosperity of competitors and rivals abroad. Were noble Lords able to show that, in any one point, the experiment which had led to this state of things had succeeded? For, be it remembered, that it was originally tried only as an experiment, as Mr. Huskisson's letter to his constituents proved. Were they able to demonstrate, that a greater amount of advantage had arisen to the empire at large than the amount of evil and of suffering which had been inflicted on the trade whose existence he was endeavouring to defend? If the experiment had succeeded, let it be pushed to its utmost verge and limit—let all other places share in the blessings which free trade had procured to Coventry. There was no reason why one trade should be protected and another left to destruction. If the principle were worth anything, what was good for one was good for all. But he suspected, that Ministers would pause before they ventured to apply this principle to Birmingham and Manchester in the same fatal extent as that in which it had been applied to Coventry. He suspected, too, that he well knew why they would so pause. If, on the other hand, the principle were false and erroneous, let it not be said, that it was too late for Ministers to retrace the error of their ways. He did hope, that they would yet be spared by a merciful Providence, to see and to repent of many of them. Experience should be worth something in matters of legislation. He knew of instances where a very little experience had gone a great way indeed. The brief experience of three days and three nights was sufficient to convince another assembly of the danger which would overtake the empire, and, above all, its Ministers, if the reduction of the Malt-duties were persisted in. A similar space of time sufficed to show the same intelligent body, that it was neither very wise nor very safe to make the Judges of the land the victims of party persecution and individual rancour and malevolence. He thought, therefore, that the experience of nearly thrice as many years as there had been days and nights devoted to reflection on those two memorable occasions would amply justify Ministers in reconsidering and modifying a system which had hitherto had no other result than that of spreading distress and ruin where comfort and industry had prevailed. He remembered, that a few weeks before, the noble Earl at the head of the Government was sorely dis-
488
pleased because he had said, that we had derived no benefit whatever from what was affectionately termed our intimate connection with France, for which we had not been obliged to pay dearly, either in the shape of national honour or of national interest. The noble Earl, in a tone of virtuous and lofty indignation, then dared him to his proofs. He now gave them to him. They were embodied in those petitions, unless, indeed, the noble Earl was disposed to contend, that the condemnation of thousands of English families to pauperism and the workhouse was an augmentation of national honour, or the annihilation or transfer into foreign and hostile hands of one of our most valuable home manufactories was an advancement of national interest. The noble Viscount concluded by presenting petitions from the inhabitants of Foleshill, in the county of Warwick; from the Magistrates, Clergy, and Gentlemen residing in the county of Warwick; from the inhabitants of Bulkington and Nuneaton; from the master manufacturers of Coventry; and from the weavers of Coventry and Bidworth—all complaining of the depressed state of the riband trade, and praying the House to take measures for its protection. After the petitions (eleven in number) had been read and received, the noble Lord moved, that they be referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House.
Lord Aucklandopposed the Motion. In common with the rest of his Majesty's Ministers, he felt deep regret at the sufferings of the petitioners, the details of which he believed were not exaggerated, and that regret was in no slight degree exaggerated by the conviction, that it was not possible by any legislative interference to remove the evil of which they complained. The petitions demanded that an entire change should be made in the commercial policy of the country; but it should be recollected, that the Coventry trade, which was that to which the petitioners belonged, was only one branch of the silk trade, and, such being the case, he put it to the House, whether it would not be most unfair to accede to the demands of the petitioners by entirely changing the commercial policy between Great Britain and France. But, putting that consideration out of view, he was prepared to contend, that the distress of which the petitioners complained was not occasioned by any defect in the commercial system of the country which a change in its policy would remedy. It

489
was attributable entirely to the existing high price of the raw material, and the state of the money market. The noble Lord charged the Government with indifference, not only to the sufferings of the petitioners, but to the enforcing the due execution of the laws regarding the importation of foreign silk; but he could assure their Lordships, that in neither respect was the charge capable of being substantiated. The noble Viscount had also thrown blame on the Government for not attempting to adopt any of the suggestions thrown out by the trade for the removal of those causes of complaint which the petitioners urged upon the attention of the House. He was able, however, to assure the House, that every attention had been paid by the Board of Customs to those suggestions; that two or three experiments had been made in consequence of them; and, in short, that, as far as the Government was concerned, no inattention whatever was chargeable. The experiments, however, had proved that the suggestions were not likely to effect the object had in view by those who offered them, and consequently they had not been acted upon. The best course, perhaps, to be adopted to meet the case of the petitioners, would be to revise the old rate of duties; but he had seen so much danger and alarm to the trade originate in sudden alteration in the scale of duties, that he would rather bear the inequality complained of in the present scale than hastily propose a change. For nearly a similar reason, namely, the excitement likely to be caused in the general trade by the appointment of a Select Committee of their Lordships, and the danger of exciting expectations which it would be impossible to realize, he felt called upon to oppose the Motion of the noble Viscount.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought it was much to be regretted, that the petitioners should rely on a prohibitory system as likely to remedy the evils of which they complained, and if it was only to prove to them the general inconvenience to the commercial system of the country, as well as the injury to their own individual interests, that would inevitably arise from the enactment of such protection, he was sorry the noble Baron could not think himself justified in granting the inquiry moved for. The noble Baron's statement he looked upon as satisfactory in many respects, but he felt bound to say, the noble Baron failed in satisfying his
490
mind that the protecting duties might not be increased with advantage to the British silk-manufacturers. They had heard a great deal of free trade in other countries, but, in his opinion, there was no such thing as free trade at all. The object of every country, in the arrangement of its commercial system, was the very laudable one of protecting its peculiar manufactures, and, in his opinion, it was the duty of Government to watch the progress of those manufactures, and so to alter the rate of duties from time to time, as to give protection to the manufacturers. He must say he thought foreign silk-manufacturers did enjoy advantages which were not enjoyed by those of Great Britain, and he should therefore be favourable to such an increase of duty on foreign silk, as to give a chance to the home manufacturer. He believed that such an increase would be recommended by the Committee now moved for, and on that ground, and because by granting it, the minds of the petitioners would be satisfied that their case was attended to, he regretted that the noble Lord announced his intention of opposing it. He wished, at all events, the noble Lord had given his consent to enter upon the inquiry, so far as to ascertain whether, by any alteration in the existing scale of duties, it would be possible to give a greater protection to the British manufactures.
Viscount Strang ford,as other business was about to come on, would not take up the time of the House with many observations. He felt assured, that with respect to the details contained in the noble Lord's speech, he should have no difficulty in answering them in the Committee, if one should be granted. He would only say, that with regard to the superior machinery employed by the French, similar machinery had been in use at Coventry and elsewhere, and that it was now at a standstill. There was no use in recommending machinery unless they furnished employment for it. As to the proof of prosperity drawn from the increased price of the raw material here, he had to state that its price had increased in France in a still higher ratio than here; and yet the French manufacturers were thriving, while ours were in a state of progressive decay. The only approach to argument against the appointment of a Committee, which he had that night heard, was the one drawn from the probable shortness of the Session. The House of Commons, however, did not appear to think, that the termination of the

491
Session was so near at hand. Not four nights ago, they had granted a Committee to inquire into the complaints of the hand-loom weavers. He only asked from the House of Lords, on behalf of the silk riband weavers, that which the House of Commons had granted to the hand-loom weavers. He had always been told, that in this happy country there existed no wrong without a remedy. He thought that the documents which he had read to the House had proved a case of grievous wrong. He was content to leave the remedy in their Lordships' hands, more particularly in the hands of those who thought, as he did, that the question involved higher, because moral, considerations; that it was not a mere matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, but that it turned upon the principle, that the more widely they threw open the paths of honest industry to our population, the more effectually they closed the avenues which led to guilt and crime.
The Motion was negatived.

WARWICK BOROUGH.
Further evidence was heard on the Warwick Borough Bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that common sense and common justice to the House and the country, dictated the propriety of bringing the case to a speedy termination. According as they were going on, it was hard to say whether it would be closed in 1836 or 1837, for they were already approaching 1835. After so many witnesses were examined, it could not be said that their Lordships intended to shut out the case. As he could not see the Counsel until Thursday, he hoped the parties would in the mean time ascertain what ought to be done to expedite the case. If the other eight witnesses were to be examined solely on the question of treating, which was practised, and he feared would be practised, at most elections, why, then, it was time to check that source of public expense, by preventing such evidence. He had no wish to shut out proof of treating. But then he wanted bribery, as necessary to lay the grounds of a decision. Treating without bribery would do no good. He and their Lordships heard the case very patiently and leniently. But if the Chief Justice were in his place he would deal with the parties differently. He wanted proof of bribery.
Further consideration adjourned.